>
>
>1) Unicode
>
>There is already the position
>
> 20A0 "EURO-CURRENCY SIGN"
>
>Only the glyph does not correspond. But as the
>standard does not define the glyph (there are
>only indicative), this could be considered a "typo"
>and just one needs just correct the glyph (no
>back-editing). Hence, no need for 20AC
>with all the confusion that this could add.
>
>

This was discussed at the last UTC meeting. While in some ways it's the
cleanest solution -- certainly I'd have had no problems with it -- there
was a sense that the semantics of 20A0 were slightly different from what
is proposed for 20AC. Rather than seeing 20A0 as a place-holder for a
pan-European currency symbol, it was felt that 20A0 is "the symbol for a
theoretical and undefined pan-European currency", which is different from
being "the symbol for the euro."

So far as Unicode is concerned, the whole issue is moot. Unicode is
willing to use 20AC for the euro, and there's not likely to be much
objection from WG2. It seems a shoe-in. (Of course, WG2 may -- as is
its right -- object despite everybody's expectations, but that isn't seen
as likely.)

Indeed, unless I'm not mistaken, some vendors are already using 20AC for
the euro, even though in theory you're not supposed to do that.